It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
Ah there is Anok, afraid of physics and has too much of an interesting real life to read 2 pages back. And then lying about me not telling him where to read my question. Nice of you to join in.
Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
Ah there is Anok, afraid of physics and has too much of an interesting real life to read 2 pages back. And then lying about me not telling him where to read my question. Nice of you to join in.
Yes, this seems to be the case. When ever he's responded to with cited sources, he disappears for awhile with no response, but eventually resurfaces somewhere.
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by GenRadek
" This was done on the observations of severe instability of the building, which was exhibiting all the signs of impending collapse, be it a local collapse or global collapse "
Any evidence of this severe structural damage ? Any footage of these "signs of impending collapse" ? I have still not seen any evidence of this extreme damage you OSers keep harping on about , the structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , then please , provide me with some hard evidence of that.
Also ...... you`re not looking at that quote hard enough. Why would the fire dept listen to Larry Silverstein in this situation ?
(Businessman = compulsive liar)
Originally posted by RockLobster
Have you read any of this thread? How about this?
I have , but i dont know what you are getting at , are you saying that this is evidence of extreme structural damage compromising the structural integrity of WTC 7 ?
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by GenRadek
Yeah , insult a fire fighter , like that wasnt your only reason for bringing it up you`re taking this to a new low.
If tower 7 was leaning where is the footage ?
If tower 7 was leaning why did it fall straight down ?
The fireman in that video does not seem to know what day it is, never mind what structural integrity is , he is clearly just as confused as everyone else.
Originally posted by Demigodly
This is an inferno
www.youtube.com...
The Windsor Tower burned for 24 hrs and never collapsed.
If I'm a 'truther' does that make you a 'falser'?
Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Originally posted by RockLobster
Have you read any of this thread? How about this?
I have , but i dont know what you are getting at , are you saying that this is evidence of extreme structural damage compromising the structural integrity of WTC 7 ?
Uhh--what? Yes, I'm saying that this is evidence that WTC 7 had suffered extreme structural damage. You believe the fire chiefs were lying?
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
No , they were TOLD that it was going to collapse , so they did their job and moved out. That is evidence of nothing but the cheifs doing their job right.
If WTC 7 had suffered severe structural damage , to the point of leaning , as some people claim , then why wasnt it caught in the hours of footage out there on the web ? Infact , why cant anyone actually prove it ?
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by lunarasparagus
Dont you just love their logic?
"I'm not calling them a liar! But they are lying! But I never called them a liar!"
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by Demigodly
This is an inferno
www.youtube.com...
The Windsor Tower burned for 24 hrs and never collapsed.
If I'm a 'truther' does that make you a 'falser'?
And what was left standing? Oh yes, the steel reenforced concrete core. What happened to the rest of the building? It collapsed after being on fire for 3 hours. Where was the comparable core in the WTC7?
As for being a "truther", truthers seem to put out quite a bit of lies. Why is that? I believe it is an ironic label.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by RockLobster
Ok, well he can see the building was leaning. Others stated that it was leaning, and bulging, and creaking, and burning, and they even had to put a transit on it to follow the movement. If it was in no danger, then why did they bother putting a transit on it?
Here you have a firefighter who can tell it is off kilter. But no, of course to you, he is tired, confused, and just cannot think straight.
Also, since you claim that pulling it means blowing it up, can you direct me to a list of buildings the NYFD has explosively demoed in the past 30 years? After all, the fire dept is the one that decided to "blow it up" according to you. So are the firefighters in on it?
"Pull it" was used as an order to detonate the charges.
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."